Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 21:18:21 GMT
What a stupid thread, initiated on the rubbish of ignorance. Pardon me, but I think it is appropriate for this board. I doubt there can be a stupid thread in its proper place. A little tolerance goes a long way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 23:29:09 GMT
What a stupid thread, initiated on the rubbish of ignorance. Pardon me, but I think it is appropriate for this board. I doubt there can be a stupid thread in its proper place. A little tolerance goes a long way. Good for you. I think it's a stupid thread, initiated on the rubbish of ignorance. The preponderance of appropriate evidence sides with me on this conclusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 0:16:44 GMT
Pardon me, but I think it is appropriate for this board. I doubt there can be a stupid thread in its proper place. A little tolerance goes a long way. Good for you. I think it's a stupid thread, initiated on the rubbish of ignorance. The preponderance of appropriate evidence sides with me on this conclusion. Whatever. If this thread had been posted on the Food & Drink board I might agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 19, 2018 0:27:37 GMT
I read the thread, but still would like to comment on one point. then you have not learned very well, you already know what the definition of perfect is: If a being already has all the required elements, qualities and characteristics and is as good (not in a moral) sense as it is as possible to be, then any change will change that state, moving them away from perfection. It is basic logic. Not necessarily. Let's say there's a recipe for the perfect cake. Meaning: A cake that could not possibly taste better. Then, for reasons unbeknownst to us, one ingredient stops existing; but some other ingredients appear (ecological reasons; whatever). So the chefs who can make the cake try out different alternative ingredients, and finally find one which allows them to make the perfect cake again. No cake can taste better, and the cake with the new recipe tastes as good as the cake with the old recipe. So we have two different recipes for cake, and both are perfect. This is assuming that it is possible to agree on taste. Hypothetical of course, but then, so is the existence of deities. It's just to illustrate that if perfection means "as good as possible", then it doesn't necessarily mean unchanging. I kind of see your point, but God is omniscient, so would have known the cake ingredient was going to run out and should have planned for it. Hmm I guess it depends on how perfect is defined, your perfect cake should never run out of ingredients, that might be part of it's perfection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 0:37:06 GMT
Good for you. I think it's a stupid thread, initiated on the rubbish of ignorance. The preponderance of appropriate evidence sides with me on this conclusion. Whatever. If this thread had been posted on the Food & Drink board I might agree with you. It has nothing to do with it being a relevant topic. I never said it was irrelevant. I said it was stupid. The internet has already housed this debate a gajillion times. We've already set straight the ignoramuses who don't understand covenants and how they work, so continuing to push an argument that has already been defined is either ignorance or willful ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 0:40:35 GMT
I read the thread, but still would like to comment on one point. Not necessarily. Let's say there's a recipe for the perfect cake. Meaning: A cake that could not possibly taste better. Then, for reasons unbeknownst to us, one ingredient stops existing; but some other ingredients appear (ecological reasons; whatever). So the chefs who can make the cake try out different alternative ingredients, and finally find one which allows them to make the perfect cake again. No cake can taste better, and the cake with the new recipe tastes as good as the cake with the old recipe. So we have two different recipes for cake, and both are perfect. This is assuming that it is possible to agree on taste. Hypothetical of course, but then, so is the existence of deities. It's just to illustrate that if perfection means "as good as possible", then it doesn't necessarily mean unchanging. I kind of see your point, but God is omniscient, so would have known the cake ingredient was going to run out and should have planned for it. Hmm I guess it depends on how perfect is defined, your perfect cake should never run out of ingredients, that might be part of it's perfection. A perfect cake would never be based on the taster anyway since the individual's tastes may vary. It has to measure up to the standard of the baker and it must be consistent. There has never been a time in what we know that God's standards dropped to the point of making a mistake. The only way to judge perfection against him would be on our own standard which would be silly. It would be like rhubarb judging us for our taste in clothes and us being dumb enough to worry about it. I digress... For the cake analogy to work with God, the baker would have all the components necessary for a perfect cake except the eggs are rotten. So the decision is made to not make the cake. Is that changing his mind? If so, is it an error? Or what if all the components for the perfect cake are there and the baker just decides to bake it on Thursday instead of Wednesday? Or what if the perfect cake starts out as vanilla and thebake decides he wants the cake to be chocolate. Is that an error? Is there such thing as a perfect chocolate cake or was there never such a thing as a perfect vanilla cake? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Now let's pretend baker is omniscient (To be clear, God is not based on your definition and so the baker is technically something different from God, but I actually want you to see the flaw no matter how you slice it...) and he knew 5,000,000 years in advance that the eggs would be rotten on the day he was planning to make a cake. So he changes his mind and determines to make the cake on a day the eggs are fresh. Is that actually changing his mind? If so, is it his error because the eggs are rotten?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 19, 2018 15:59:36 GMT
tpfkar What a stupid thread, initiated on the rubbish of ignorance. "<howl of pain>" The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 16:07:24 GMT
tpfkar What a stupid thread, initiated on the rubbish of ignorance. "<howl of pain>" The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 19, 2018 16:08:47 GMT
I read the thread, but still would like to comment on one point. then you have not learned very well, you already know what the definition of perfect is: If a being already has all the required elements, qualities and characteristics and is as good (not in a moral) sense as it is as possible to be, then any change will change that state, moving them away from perfection. It is basic logic. Not necessarily. Let's say there's a recipe for the perfect cake. Meaning: A cake that could not possibly taste better. Then, for reasons unbeknownst to us, one ingredient stops existing; but some other ingredients appear (ecological reasons; whatever). So the chefs who can make the cake try out different alternative ingredients, and finally find one which allows them to make the perfect cake again. No cake can taste better, and the cake with the new recipe tastes as good as the cake with the old recipe. So we have two different recipes for cake, and both are perfect. This is assuming that it is possible to agree on taste. Hypothetical of course, but then, so is the existence of deities. It's just to illustrate that if perfection means "as good as possible", then it doesn't necessarily mean unchanging. The cake may be as good as possible given the circumstance, but the maker who in this case not only wills any ingredient into existence, but creates the very concept of "ingredient", "cake", etc., can not be. No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 19, 2018 17:23:26 GMT
I kind of see your point, but God is omniscient, so would have known the cake ingredient was going to run out and should have planned for it. Hmm I guess it depends on how perfect is defined, your perfect cake should never run out of ingredients, that might be part of it's perfection. A perfect cake would never be based on the taster anyway since the individual's tastes may vary. It has to measure up to the standard of the baker and it must be consistent. There has never been a time in what we know that God's standards dropped to the point of making a mistake. The only way to judge perfection against him would be on our own standard which would be silly. It would be like rhubarb judging us for our taste in clothes and us being dumb enough to worry about it. I digress... For the cake analogy to work with God, the baker would have all the components necessary for a perfect cake except the eggs are rotten. So the decision is made to not make the cake. Is that changing his mind? If so, is it an error? Or what if all the components for the perfect cake are there and the baker just decides to bake it on Thursday instead of Wednesday? Or what if the perfect cake starts out as vanilla and thebake decides he wants the cake to be chocolate. Is that an error? Is there such thing as a perfect chocolate cake or was there never such a thing as a perfect vanilla cake? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Now let's pretend baker is omniscient (To be clear, God is not based on your definition and so the baker is technically something different from God, but I actually want you to see the flaw no matter how you slice it...) and he knew 5,000,000 years in advance that the eggs would be rotten on the day he was planning to make a cake. So he changes his mind and determines to make the cake on a day the eggs are fresh. Is that actually changing his mind? If so, is it his error because the eggs are rotten? He is not changing his mind that is the point, he is making a decision with 100% foresight, he won't need to change his mind. Your question would only work if God decided to bake a cake on teusday but then realised that the eggs would not be ready till wednesday and decides to change the bake day,but since he has 100% foresight, he knew all this on monday and never planned to bake the cake on teusday. If god is onmisicent and out of time, there is no reason at all for him to make a plan that does not come out 100% who he wants, and furthermore there is no logical reason for him to make a plan he knows he has to change in the future, after all he has 100% foresight.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 17:41:34 GMT
A perfect cake would never be based on the taster anyway since the individual's tastes may vary. It has to measure up to the standard of the baker and it must be consistent. There has never been a time in what we know that God's standards dropped to the point of making a mistake. The only way to judge perfection against him would be on our own standard which would be silly. It would be like rhubarb judging us for our taste in clothes and us being dumb enough to worry about it. I digress... For the cake analogy to work with God, the baker would have all the components necessary for a perfect cake except the eggs are rotten. So the decision is made to not make the cake. Is that changing his mind? If so, is it an error? Or what if all the components for the perfect cake are there and the baker just decides to bake it on Thursday instead of Wednesday? Or what if the perfect cake starts out as vanilla and thebake decides he wants the cake to be chocolate. Is that an error? Is there such thing as a perfect chocolate cake or was there never such a thing as a perfect vanilla cake? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Now let's pretend baker is omniscient (To be clear, God is not based on your definition and so the baker is technically something different from God, but I actually want you to see the flaw no matter how you slice it...) and he knew 5,000,000 years in advance that the eggs would be rotten on the day he was planning to make a cake. So he changes his mind and determines to make the cake on a day the eggs are fresh. Is that actually changing his mind? If so, is it his error because the eggs are rotten? He is not changing his mind that is the point, he is making a decision with 100% foresight, he won't need to change his mind. Your question would only work if God decided to bake a cake on teusday but then realised that the eggs would not be ready till wednesday and decides to change the bake day,but since he has 100% foresight, he knew all this on monday and never planned to bake the cake on teusday.If god is onmisicent and out of time, there is no reason at all for him to make a plan that does not come out 100% who he wants, and furthermore there is no logical reason for him to make a plan he knows he has to change in the future, after all he has 100% foresight. If he plans at all there will always be a time component to it and an adjustment to external factors.
If he always knew something that simply means he always decided to do it a particular way as opposed to another way. So either he is always planning or he never plans anything since it's going to happen. If he never plans anything, he actually isn't even thinking about it.As an aside, omniscience by your definition is being a slave to time and knowledge. This of course means God cannot be omnipotent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 17:53:33 GMT
In my humble opinion, open theism (or the open view of the future) tends to settle every conundrum regarding divine foreknowledge.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 18:07:52 GMT
In my humble opinion, open theism (or the open view of the future) tends to settle every conundrum regarding divine foreknowledge. Well, the Bible explains how God can know the future, just that he isn't required to which would make him weak and his message pointless. The notion that he must know everything and across all times is just an argument to generate a flaw in his existence that isn't there. This thread however doesn't really have that problem as the problem primarily appears to be that changing your mind is viewed as an error which is bizarre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 18:33:05 GMT
In my humble opinion, open theism (or the open view of the future) tends to settle every conundrum regarding divine foreknowledge. Well, the Bible explains how God can know the future, just that he isn't required to which would make him weak and his message pointless. The notion that he must know everything and across all times is just an argument to generate a flaw in his existence that isn't there. This thread however doesn't really have that problem as the problem primarily appears to be that changing your mind is viewed as an error which is bizarre. The changing of one's mind in and of itself is obviously not an indication of "error." But as I'm understanding it, some people are taking issue with God changing his mind because he SHOULD have perfect knowledge of the future (as a realm of settled facts). So why would he need to change his mind if the future is perfectly knowable (again, as settled facts)? That specifically is what I think the open view adequately addresses. We're just not thinking about the future in the "correct" way (according to the open view). The future looks more like a branching tree than a straight line.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 19, 2018 18:39:51 GMT
He is not changing his mind that is the point, he is making a decision with 100% foresight, he won't need to change his mind. Your question would only work if God decided to bake a cake on teusday but then realised that the eggs would not be ready till wednesday and decides to change the bake day,but since he has 100% foresight, he knew all this on monday and never planned to bake the cake on teusday.If god is onmisicent and out of time, there is no reason at all for him to make a plan that does not come out 100% who he wants, and furthermore there is no logical reason for him to make a plan he knows he has to change in the future, after all he has 100% foresight. If he plans at all there will always be a time component to it and an adjustment to external factors.
If he always knew something that simply means he always decided to do it a particular way as opposed to another way. So either he is always planning or he never plans anything since it's going to happen. If he never plans anything, he actually isn't even thinking about it.As an aside, omniscience by your definition is being a slave to time and knowledge. This of course means God cannot be omnipotent. It depends on your definition of slave, as God created everything (in the omniscience theory) he is not the slave he is the master, but because he knows all that is in the future and all the variables then his plan is set in stone from the that does not make him a slave. Which is making a single decision, not changing your mind.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 18:41:44 GMT
Well, the Bible explains how God can know the future, just that he isn't required to which would make him weak and his message pointless. The notion that he must know everything and across all times is just an argument to generate a flaw in his existence that isn't there. This thread however doesn't really have that problem as the problem primarily appears to be that changing your mind is viewed as an error which is bizarre. The changing of one's mind in and of itself is obviously not an indication of "error." But as I'm understanding it, some people are taking issue with God changing his mind because he SHOULD have perfect knowledge of the future (as a realm of settled facts). So why would he need to change his mind if the future is perfectly knowable (again, as settled facts)? That specifically is what I think the open view adequately addresses. We're just not thinking about the future in the "correct" way (according to the open view). The future looks more like a branching tree than a straight line. There's two issues going on. Some think changing your mind means you made a mistake in your original decision making. The second is some are applying a definition of omniscience that doesn't apply to God. For the former, I have stated that it's easy to change your mind among two or more suitable choices. For the latter, I argue that even if someone has perfect knowledge of the future, they still would make decisions that could include changing their mind about the future. The only way the argument works otherwise, is that God makes no decisions at all since he has no control of the outcomes since he only knows about them. ANY change is an error in foreknowledge which is silly.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 20:00:55 GMT
gadreel Except that he is not the master if he is required to create. That's just his job that he can't deviate from even in the slightest since it's already done perfectly and he will know it. That's not to say he would mind. Obviously he doesn't mind since the moment he gets bored with it, he creates an error, but it does make him impotent. Among multiple variables and all of them at the same time which means there really is the one variable. the mere thought of another way creates an error in thought since he already knew the right way all along and across all time. There was never really an option.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 19, 2018 20:05:45 GMT
gadreel Except that he is not the master if he is required to create. That's just his job that he can't deviate from even in the slightest since it's already done perfectly and he will know it. That's not to say he would mind. Obviously he doesn't mind since the moment he gets bored with it, he creates an error, but it does make him impotent. Among multiple variables and all of them at the same time which means there really is the one variable. the mere thought of another way creates an error in thought since he already knew the right way all along and across all time. There was never really an option. I have never considered that God was REQUIRED to create. But otherwise we seem to be in agreement about an omniscient God.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 20:11:58 GMT
gadreel Except that he is not the master if he is required to create. That's just his job that he can't deviate from even in the slightest since it's already done perfectly and he will know it. That's not to say he would mind. Obviously he doesn't mind since the moment he gets bored with it, he creates an error, but it does make him impotent. Among multiple variables and all of them at the same time which means there really is the one variable. the mere thought of another way creates an error in thought since he already knew the right way all along and across all time. There was never really an option. I have never considered that God was REQUIRED to create. But otherwise we seem to be in agreement about an omniscient God. Well, we may agree that the notion of an omniscient God is kinda stupid and nonsensical. Otherwise, I do not have any reason to believe God is omniscient based on how you view it.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 19, 2018 20:23:44 GMT
I have never considered that God was REQUIRED to create. But otherwise we seem to be in agreement about an omniscient God. Well, we may agree that the notion of an omniscient God is kinda stupid and nonsensical. Otherwise, I do not have any reason to believe God is omniscient based on how you view it. We seem to agree that it is logically ridiculous for an omnisicent god to ever be in a position to change it's mind.
|
|